Defeatist attitude will certainly not help any of us one bit. If the current system is not working, one would think getting out of your seat and working for a replacement would be the obvious choice - leaning back on the couch is what got us in this mess to begin with.

Is about dynamics. Add heat to a system and you should think that particles should move faster, and even if some of them move slower, should be very few and not able to be noticed in the big trend. While you have a culture where the ultimate goods are money and power the trends just go in one direction. And the power is accumulated enough to reach the critical mass to avoid any kind of potential threat, with worldwide surveillance and more active methods [rt.com].

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

- Thomas Jefferson

No system is perfect. And no system will last forever. No matter how good the intentions of the original inventors, it will invariably eventually be perverted by people who do not believe in its core features, its system of privileges and responsibilities and who only want to retain privileges while shedding any and all responsibility.

But people who have only privileges and no responsibilities are useless for a society. Nobility learned that last century. This century will probably teach another part of society this lesson, that people simply don't need phony emperors with no clothes. Maybe we'll even live to see it.

How that change will come is to be determined. The later it comes, the less bloody it will be. Simply because more of the people who could defend the old system will see that it has failed and are not willing to prop it up anymore.

No system is perfect. And no system will last forever. No matter how good the intentions of the original inventors, it will invariably eventually be perverted by people who do not believe in its core features

Well, you see that's why England has a natural advantage compared to the USA. Our core features are more or less:

1066: I'm the Kiiiiiiiing you will all obeeeeeey me. I shall slaughter you just in case you forget.Magna Carta: lol no (in latin).

Err, there is a bit more to the constitutional rights in England than that. I know that they aren't written down clearly (or at all), but courts have ruled that there are some unwritten constitutional rights under common law.

> Unfortunately, it looks like American law started with rights for all and> is now working its way back up.

Rights for ALL* in America!

* Some restrictions apply, applies to US residents before the signing of the constitution or born here afterwards. Void in the case of membership in native tribes. Must own significant land to qualify. Men only.

ftfy. Otherwise spot on. If I could find Hamilton's transcripts from the early meetings, there are a lot of choice quotations from those supposedly noble founding fathers and their wonderful intentions...

Do you know where this is explicitly defined. That was, of course, my understanding as well, but after your comment I decided to try and look up the definition of who could vote, and I couldn't find much other than that the states were supposed to figure out how to run elections.

I tried to check my own state constitution (which actually recognizes its citizens rights as listed in the Dec of Independence....its rare that such documents make me smile) and found precious little definition of such there either

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Thomas Jefferson was an American revolutionary. While you seem very keen on spilling the blood of patriots and tyrants, you aren't really addressing the real issue. In fact, as far as I recall you just completely ignore or try to assume it away every time it comes up. The problem involves this lot, and their brethren:

You are also an extremist, cold fjord. You and the rest of your pro-authoritarian friends. Should we come after you as well? Surely you have commited the very same thoughtcrime as the most likely innocent muslims you call terrorists. The rest of us would prefer not to live in a police state. Not in the US. Not in the UK. Not anywhere. Liberty is far more important than any terrorist attacks.

Maybe you are deathly afraid of teh terrierists, but it appears to me that even venomous snakes are more of a menace.

I think this is a splendid example of the fringe thinking you keep posting.

Should we come after you as well? Surely you have commited the very same thoughtcrime as the most likely innocent muslims you call terrorists.

I'm not interested in "thought crime." I'm interested in preventing bombings, shootings, beheadings, poisonings, hijackings, and various other assorted crimes that occur outside of people's heads. The people that commit those crimes aren't "innocent," although they are innocent until proven guilty.

I don't think much of anyone is interested in creating a police state in the US or UK. By the same token I don't think the US or UK can

Yes, the problem is that random accidents and animal attacks are different than deliberate human actions.

How? The equivalent of the overreaching anti-terrorism controls in order to protect oneself from the miniscule number of actual terrorists would be to lock yourself in your house and if you do go out, wrap yourself up in bubble wrap and a kevlar hazmat suit. And that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it. It's pretty bloody easy to deal with terrorism, the point is, are you willing to change your whole life (and your view on morality) to do so?

If you get this wrong it is easy for the numbers to change quickly. 9/11 - 2,973 dead. 7/7 - 52 dead. Bali - 202 dead. Madrid - 191 dead, 1841 wounded.In Iraq they were suffering multiple attacks per week of this sort at times.

Yes, the problem is that random accidents and animal attacks are different than deliberate human actions.

Why?

What makes it more important to give up our liberties to prevent terrorism than to give up our liberties to prevent accidental death caused by wild animals? Analyse the logic behind the sentiment, and I think you will find it an utterly irrational and thus indefensible emotional reaction in a situation where a cool, analytical reaction is more appropriate (because what we stand to lose is very valuable).

Actually, it makes more sense to become complacent about terrorism in the UK. We've been living with terrorist threats for a long time (I personally remember the IRA bombing campaigns of the 1970s - by the way, why did the US fund the IRA with so much money?) and it makes little sense to live in fear.

The principle job of a terrorist is to get ordinary people afraid, so we should simply ignore them and get on with our lives. I personally think that we should be far more wary of our governments than whateve

Then it seems to me that your problem is with the democratic process and the ability of the government to hold the security services accountable.

If you hold that view I hope you aren't a fan of the NHS: Yes, I trust the government to put its hands into my bowels and move things around, maybe take out this or that, and put something in, or to pump me full of toxic chemicals and irradiate me, but I in no way trust them to keep me from being blown up.

Hmmm, let's see... what would make those people do these things? It may have to do with the way the Western world treats the Middle East... The pampering of Israel, two Gulf wars that cost hundreds of thousands of lives to make sure we will keep thick and rich streams of oil coming our way, the way we placed and removed dictators in that area... Maybe the locals there don't like us so much. And wit 'us' I mean not the US alone, but also most of Europe. As we all know, the EU is deep in bed with the US.

A predictable answer, and completely wrong. You obviously have no idea what al Qaida and the like minded want. Ultimately what they want isn't so much the US, UK, Europe, et. al, out of the Middle East, but rather that the US, UK, Europe and the rest of the world to convert to Islam and be governed by Sharia law. Do you understand that? They want to revive the Islamic Caliphate that was dissolved in 1923 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, change the governments in Muslim countries to rule according to

Jesus fucking Christ, the data rape going on there is brutal. You conveniently forget to mention that the year 1683 lies at the end of a 700 year period of brutal persecution, crusades and general mayhem, all founded on religion (on the surface) but boiling down to "more power for me, less for you". And you could probably tally the losses on both "sides" of that conflict, but in reality it was everybody against everybody.

It seems to me like you have absolutely no clue what these groups want, and why they're

Hey, here's a novel idea: how about we assume innocence until proven guilty. How about we examine the reasons and motives of people who try to harm you, and not just chalking it up to the in fashion meme of terrorist. Maybe even take a looooong hard look at foreign policy and maybe try to identify the overall reasons as to why someone would go to such great lengths to inflict harm on total strangers halfway around the world. I think you will find that the commonly perceived reason of religion is just as muc

This is actually not a bad idea unless it's already been done...but I haven't really heard much from the "terrorist" side. I hear the talking points of the various governments, assumptions from regular folks, and some non-involved Muslims speculating (the way the rest of us are). Has anyone outside of Government circles engaged any of these people to pointedly ask them what in the hell it is that they want? That they hope to achieve? Or are we all just hearing propaganda and assuming that's all there is

I don't think there is anything special in the logic employed by people branded terrorists as opposed to anyone else. Basic instinctual functions of the brain are being manipulated by people who know how, and once that is done, you can insert whatever cause you will. We see this every day around us. Do you have a coworker who's also a die hard climate change denier? Sport's fan? Pretty much whatever. The brain takes in information, if you control that flow you can make people believe whatever the hell you f

I don't object to survellance by GCHQ, I'd just like it to be targeted rather than blanket... and carried out _within_ the framework that parliament agreed rather than finding loopholes that allow it to work _outside_ that framework.

Call me old-fasinoned, but I still believe the only way to ensure that the terrorists don't win is for the country to take it on the chin when terrorists strike and then carry on as normal. Anything else, any knee-jerk reaction, any retalliation, any security or survelliance

Although you may think it wrong, the surveillance by GCHQ is a meaningful part of the security services efforts to protect ordinary Britons. You don't offer anything to replace it.

...*More fear based rhetoric*...

Look, I'm sorry you Yanks got your panties in a knot over one attack on home soil. I'm sorry that all your idealism didn't do shit to shield your sad little minds from the "terror" of living in the real world where the insulation of "X has talent" and "X can dance" TV shows hasn't kept you from seeing the enemies you've made.

But this isn't new shit for us Brits - we've been getting bombed and "terrorised" in our colonies and home country for decades now. We've had the European immigrants into Israel bombing us out of the country, half a dozen countries in Europe that are now our 'friends' trying the same shit, and the bloody Irish separatists using everything from nail bombs to car bombs - it got so bad that people weren't able to put their bins on the street on collection day cause some sod might hide a bomb there.

True enough there are some fat lazy slobs in the commons now that were probably safe in their country home when all that shit was going on - but now they have to be in the center of London for their job - so we have to put up with this shit because of their fear.

But the last thing we need is fretful little cowards like you telling us how important this shite is! It's old news that doesn't concern any of us and you won't make us hate anyone but you and the other cowards. You certainly won't turn us against any of our friends who happen to be of different faiths - at least no any of us that weren't already rabid, froth-mouthed EDL members. The only country that has lost any UK supporters in the last decade has been the US - and that's only going to get worse as people like you continue to shout the loudest.

But this isn't new shit for us Brits - we've been getting bombed and "terrorised" in our colonies and home country for decades now.

So if that is the case, then why is the British government doing something about it? That is what this whole thread is about, isn't it? The British government has taken action to protect British lives and some people object to that action. Although you show contempt for members of Parliament, you don't limit it to the question of this policy, so I assume it is a general conempt. I also note that there don't seem to be any attacks on the post up thread that is in essence calling for the overthrow of the [slashdot.org]

Sometimes the blood that waters the tree of liberty is that of innocents. You can never have perfect safety, and even trying to get very close to it will involve massive compromises in liberty. The price of liberty may just be the occasional 9/11... accepting the tragic deaths of a thousandth of a percent of the population every few years in order to avoid stomping on the freedoms of the other 99.999%.

I view the victims of terrorist attacks against a free society as unwitting, tragic heroes for the cause

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

We really need our Patriots, especially now. Tyrants? Not so much. That being said, we've already spilled the blood of too many Patriots--let's start with the tyrants this time around. Perhaps then, we could bring our Patriots home.

I'm inclined to feel that a true patriot isn't someone who runs around screaming "We're #1" and brandishing popguns, it's someone who actually goes out with the understanding that their blood is nourishment for their nation's liberty.

The only difference between "our Patriots" and "us" is that they got off of their asses and did something about it. There's no magic formula. There's no advantage that they had that we do not. They did not have special insights (at least, not any more so than we do now). The only difference is their willingness to act in their own best interests.

Well, that is precisely the attitude I was pointing to in my original reply, defeatist. We're not trying to change human nature, that would be idiotic, and to suggest that is what it takes is equally idiotic. Human nature boils down to: eat, survive, reproduce, yet we have consistently moved forward with our understanding of the world around us, despite the drag of the reptilian brain functions. We have even managed to organize in groups to accomplish rather astounding things, despite our predatory, self-ce

However, a large number of people are in situations they find morally questionable, or are simply just a bit too comfortable to actually do more.
With few open and obvious results to writing campaigns, calling and emailing representatives, and even voting, venting is bound to happen.
The more that is heard about secret courts and secret laws, the less the public feels they are actually in control of their government.

Technology changes though. Technology is what made mass-monitoring possible - without modern communications and computers, the USSR could only dream of recording every conversation. They were limited by how many agents they could afford. Just a technology make mass-monitoring possible, it can also provide the countermeasure: Encryption and decentralised, anonymous communication protocols.

Well, that and beer, no political problems have ever been solved on an empty glass.

I get your point, that encrypting your communications would solve the current problem of surveillance. The thing is though, that the surveillance is just a symptom of a much more profound problem, i.e. rotten governments. Encrypting your email is only patching a hole, not really solving a problem.

We all know the rule of law has broken down completely. I admire their approach, but we need to be realistic. Its the end of the road for our current way of life.

We're all just waiting for this to really kick in and its not going to be pretty when it does.

Now, we don't know that the rule of law has truly broken down. We're just not allowed to see what the laws are.

Today we're all into asymmetric warfare. Terrorists cannot muster large armies, so they sneak-attack civilians. Governments amass detailed and indiscriminate information on citizens, but object if anyone else is allowed any information.

a secret court that gives secret permissions investigating disputes in secret, and the issue is about other peoples secrets being violated by secret powers.it's getting pretty hard to argue that any democratic principles are being upheld...

the problem is obviously that the secret organizations included in this could blackmail people in secret if they wanted to, they could do number of things in secret. even fabricate secrets in secret meetings, to demand secret actions. because of the total lack of transpar

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. [...] there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it." - JFK

You left out some of that quote [wikiquote.org], including the clarifying sentence in the middle of the two you quoted, and a meaningful bit at the end:

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today

And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

JFK wasn't stating there should be no secrets, but that keeping them should be well justified. I don't think his administration published American war plans, nuclear force readiness reports, or the encryption keys for military and diplomatic communications, for example.

Too many people here are distorting history and mangling quotes to try to justify the extremist position

Quotes/sound bites are by their very nature distortions. However, they also distill the essence of a more nuanced but longer expression, or they aren't quotes, they're mis-quotes.

there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it

Or, if you prefer something pithier and more immediate:

We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo

Which actually was used in reference to pollution in the particular book I have, although it applies well to many things, and I think actually was used more than once even in the original comic for different purposes.

Of course it matters, the problem is that in order to affect change you need to convince the majority that their vote also matters, and that not toeing the party line is not a wasted vote. I don't think a regime like the one in the UK can withstand prolonged dissent stemming from rigged elections, so voting for change would eventually affect change, granted, it might take a few elections. In this context, change doesn't mean voting for the opposing party though, but voting (or running) for a party or group

I think that would only amount to a reset of capitalistic tendencies, similar to how it was done in Germany after the second world war. It would favor people who already have assets not explicitly covered by the reset, people with networks and flexible morality would still come out ahead of the rest of us. The vast majority of people who have nothing already would only temporarily gain from it, and my concern is that society would settle back into a track we're already very familiar with.

Given rise of robotics, expert systems, eventually crude and partial AI and maybe later progress there, the current imponderable of productions and distribution of sufficient cheap energy based on blend of stuff that works to increase capacity and balance load (that includes lots of nukes, especially thorium cycle; also methane cycle stuff, and despite the large initial costs and long ROI, solar-power sats), planetary distribution of work, gradual planetary shift

Of course it matters, the problem is that in order to affect change you need to convince the majority that their vote also matters, and that not toeing the party line is not a wasted vote. I don't think a regime like the one in the UK can withstand prolonged dissent stemming from rigged elections, so voting for change would eventually affect change, granted, it might take a few elections. In this context, change doesn't mean voting for the opposing party though, but voting (or running) for a party or group that believes in the change you wish to see. Just flipping across the middle to vote opposite doesn't change much if we assume that they're all alike.

There are several issues:- None of the main parties are actually seriously interested in reversing the trend towards a police state. The best you get is an occasional promise to block the trend on one specific piece of legislation, not block it across the board or reverse it. In the current first-past-the-post system, anyone who isn't one of the main parties doesn't stand much chance, so "form your own party then" isn't an answer.- Too many voters vote for the same party in each election just because that

Very well thought out reply, so thank you for that. I agree with pretty much all your points, and I see it as an elaboration of my initial point on the voting public in general not being willing enough to understand the issues. Where I vote it's the exact same problems as you list, fellow voters voting for the usual suspects, because that's how it's always been, and 100 years ago, this or that party was [insert group]'s voice. I also agree that it is a huge problem that we cannot pick a subset from the mani

I would however like to point out that the system in place now is a continuation of centuries, if not millennia, of violent revolutions giving room for new kinds of governments (in some cases, re-instituting old ones), and as such we could argue that violent revolution has led us here once already.

Indeed; but the result of the last violent revolution has produced many years of reasonably good government; but there is an ongoing progression towards totalitarianism and its my opinion that the only way that trend will be reversed is through another revolution (which would hopefully result in many more years of good government). I hope I'm wrong, but I just can't see anything else that would reverse the trend. It seems to me that we have something of a cycle - we get a liberal government which progress

I hope I'm wrong, but I just can't see anything else that would reverse the trend. It seems to me that we have something of a cycle - we get a liberal government which progressively tends towards oppressiveness, eventually it becomes too oppressive, the people revolt and the whole cycle starts over.

I think you're right, but I'm loathe to accept the logical conclusion to that line of reasoning. I firmly believe that there must be another way, but attempts at an alternative logical conclusion have been feeble, we've had debates on everything in our society except the foundation of society itself (I don't count the debates about free speech and the right to insult large swathes of the population on that ground as actual debate though). I guess to meet you halfway I could argue that the threat of violence

Regarding the power generation issue, there are other concerns with nuclear power that are not immediately obvious. For instance, imagine we replaced all power plants in existence now with nuclear plants, we'd in effect just shift the reason to go to war from oil to uranium. There is also the issue of waste, and the current solution of shoveling it into a pit and hope nobody digs it up right away is unsustainable.

Of course. I wasn't intending my example to suggest that nuclear is definitely the right option, just to point out that the people making the decisions should be those in charge of all the facts, not the people who seem to be under the impression that nuclear power stations are continually on the brink of causing an enormous disaster (which clearly they aren't - there have been very few nuclear power related accidents and even fewer that have caused serious environmental harm).

The environmentalist in me would rejoice if nuclear power was used to replace industrial revolution era coal and oil plants, but with the stipulation that the waste problem be solved beforehand, and that a viable source of fuel were to be found - fusion would solve that, but meh.

Elections are a great way of changing the desktop wallpaper colour of your "democracy"

Then you're doing it wrong. First, overhaul your local government. There are fewer people outvoting you and they are one of the biggest pools of candidates for the next level up. Then repeat at the next level. And so forth.

And above all else, join a party, if your state doesn't permit open elections, but don't vote for a party or an ideology. One reason why we get such screwball candidates for the top positions is that the extremists are choosing the candidates. No one else bothers.

This.You, I, and others have pointed this out for some time now. While much of the original rev was, or started, top-down (the movers and shakers get pissed off about taxes, the commoners about bivouac laws and taxes) the requirement post establishment was always built upon bottom up.

Side note - rights are factored by responsibility and law. It's a balance, one that needs constant attention and care.

If it's too late, then attending local politics becomes an exercise and training ground for after. If it i

Aside from the obvious abuse of power inherent in the absence of accountability of secret trials, there's the equally obvious problem of undocumented law and its considerable potential for abuse. Regulation is by definition documented. And one of the benefits of that is that one has some idea of the lines which shouldn't be crossed.

Secret rulings by unaccountable courts mean secret laws which can then be selectively enforced by the only people who know the contents of those rulings, including their features and context. I think it should be a broad principle that such secret courts should never exist in a democratic society.

I think it was oh 8 months ago or so, I made a comment about how the UK was no longer adhering to the basic tenets of democracy and have basically thrown the shitter, and then burning it. I got modded down, flamed, and people said I was full of shit then. Yeah well, I guess I was right then as much as I was right now. Get's worse of course, that the UK is blocking people who might offend the "violent minority" and in turn speaking the truth isn't conducive to the public good.